Transcription

1 152 Int. J. Services Technology and Management, Vol. 10, Nos. 2/3/4, 2008 Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics Simone Strambach Philipps University Marburg Deutschhausstraße 10, D Marburg, Germany Abstract: KIBS research to date has been conducted mainly by taking an innovation perspective where an explicit focus on knowledge processes is not very well pronounced. The paper intends to make a conceptual contribution to a deeper understanding of the role of KIBS as an industry that produces, uses and transforms knowledge. It focuses on the knowledge dimension and uses evolutionary and organisation-based knowledge approaches to show that KIBS can be identified as drivers of knowledge dynamics in multilevel contexts. Both the specific characteristics of their composite knowledge products and the way these are produced are considered to be responsible for the unique way they foster knowledge dynamics in firm, sector and territorial contexts. By the application of different knowledge dimensions such as types of knowledge bases and domains mainly used to examine knowledge processes and innovation in industrial sectors, the specificities of KIBS to multilevel knowledge dynamics are analysed and discussed. Keywords: knowledge-intensive business services; KIBS; innovation; knowledge dynamics; knowledge value chain; knowledge domain; knowledge types; multilevel contexts. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Strambach, S. (2008) Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics, Int. J. Services Technology and Management, Vol. 10, Nos. 2/3/4, pp Biographical notes: Simone Strambach is a Professor for Services, Communication, Innovation at the Department of Geography, Philipps University Marburg, Germany. Her research focuses on professional knowledge economy, especially focusing on the role of knowledge-intensive business services in socioeconomic change and innovation processes. Her most recent work is on regional governance issues and the internationalisation of innovation activities. 1 Introduction The Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) industries have been among the most dynamic segments of the service sector in European countries since the mid-1980s and are one of the most rapidly growing sectors of the EU economy. Initially this growth was primarily seen as a demand-led, cost-driven, outsourcing phenomenon. In the 1990s, knowledge, innovation and spatial proximity became the three key dimensions that have Copyright 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2 KIBS as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics 153 guided the KIBS research (Muller and Doloreux, 2007). Research into service innovation and systems of innovation, especially, has shown that KIBS firms are playing a more central role for innovation as knowledge carriers, producers and mediators in national and regional economics (cf. Bessant and Rush, 2000; Hipp and Grupp, 2005; Miles et al., 1996; Toivonen, 2004; Wood, 2002). KIBS research to date is conducted mainly using an innovation perspective, where an explicit focus on knowledge processes is not very pronounced. Howells (2001) points out that there are still conceptual gaps with respect to knowledge processes of KIBS some backgrounds have already been described but the nature and the characteristics of these processes are still somewhat unclear. Muller and Doloreux (2007) also emphasise that one of the main challenges for future research in the field of KIBS is to sort out more systematically the relationship between the three key dimensions, in particular, the roles and functions of KIBS in creating and diffusing knowledge and fostering regions as innovation systems. The intention of this paper is to make a conceptual contribution to a deeper understanding of the role of KIBS as a knowledge-producing, knowledge-using and knowledge-transforming industry. It focuses on the knowledge dimension and uses knowledge-based approaches to show that KIBS can be identified as DRIVERS of knowledge dynamics in multilevel contexts. The term knowledge dynamics puts emphasis on the importance of changes in knowledge that are the driving force behind innovation. Knowledge dynamics arise through changes in knowledge itself and the various ways in which knowledge moves, is transformed and created. KIBS contribute in a unique and essential way to knowledge dynamics in firms, sectors and territorial contexts through the attributes and production of their products. We will examine this in more detail in the paper. 1 Section 2 specifies, from a theory-led perspective, a general understanding of knowledge dynamics in order to explore the ways KIBS contribute to knowledge dynamics in firms, sectors and territorial contexts. Section 3 discusses KIBS as a knowledge-processing and -producing industry. In the economics of knowledge, a major change in emphasis with regard to the understanding of knowledge is evident. Knowledge is not only understood as an object, a public or private good that can be exchanged; it is, as Antonelli (2005) underlines, also viewed as a collective and complex path-dependent activity. In the KIBS sector, the knowledge contents are closely interwoven with knowledge actions. However, for analytical reasons, we look at them separately in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Section 3.1 deals with the knowledge object, the good or the commodity, which is handled by KIBS firms. In addition to the tacit-codified dimension of knowledge, other dimensions are increasingly being recognised as having important effects on knowledge dynamics at the firm and sector levels. In Section 3.1 these different knowledge dimensions mainly used to examine knowledge processes of industrial sectors are applied to KIBS to identify specificities of these services. Section 3.2 takes a relational perspective and illustrates interaction as the central mode of knowledge processing and creation for KIBS. We will examine how client participation and involvement in the production process is related to knowledge generation and knowledge dynamics. Section 4 returns to the main argument of the paper and works out how KIBS are driving knowledge dynamics in different contexts: at the firm, the sector and the territorial aggregation levels. In addition, it outlines future research questions. Finally, Section 5 draws a conclusion.

3 154 S. Strambach 2 Knowledge dynamics: a multilevel issue The dynamic growth of economic transactions related to knowledge itself and the more systematic generation and commodification of knowledge are the main underlying characteristics of the knowledge-based economy. The understanding of the dynamics of knowledge processes, knowledge products, knowledge contexts and their interrelationship is a key issue in the globalising economy. To explore the ways KIBS contribute to knowledge dynamics in multilevel contexts, a general understanding of this term is necessary. The visible results of knowledge dynamics are innovations in products, services or processes. Even though the term knowledge dynamic is an elusive one that has not yet been properly defined, it is used in recent literature focusing on knowledge economics. In the following we propose that knowledge dynamics be understood as the dynamics that are unfolding from processes of the creation, using, transforming, moving and diffusing of knowledge. These processes are strongly influenced both by the specific knowledge base of agents and by the context in which these processes take place. The competencies of agents, understood as the way through which knowledge is elicited, used and applied to specific contexts and domains (Malerba and Orsenigo, 2000, p.297), are therefore a major factor shaping knowledge dynamics. Nonaka et al. (2000) use the term knowledge frames for describing the same phenomenon. For them knowledge frames capture the linkages between individual units of knowledge and define the way they are linked together. Their emphasis is on knowledge frames that influence knowledge dynamics together with the knowledge base including distinctive units of knowledge. According to Amin and Cohendent (2004, p.57), the notion knowledge frames can be understood as competencies. They argue that knowledge dynamics occur through the interaction between the knowledge base and knowledge frames. Analysing the role of KIBS in knowledge dynamics particularly at the levels of firm, sector and territory, we are confronted with issues of context-specific terminologies used for similar phenomena. Furthermore, as is always the case with emerging multifaceted research fields such as the socioeconomics of knowledge processes and knowledge dynamics, categories are fluid. The ontology of categories used is a matter of discussion, particularly with the notion of competencies and capabilities at the firm and industry levels employed in organisational theory and in evolutionary economic approaches at the firm level (Dosi et al., 2000; Teece et al., 1997; 2000). Whilst Malerba and Orsenigo (2000) apply competencies and organisational capabilities simultaneously, other authors make a distinction between capabilities particularly dynamic capabilities and competencies in different ways (cf. Dosi et al., 2000). Teece et al. (1997, p.516) define the concept of dynamic capabilities as the firm s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments. Additionally, Cooke (2005) transfers the dynamic capability approach to the territorial level and claims for a newer theory of economic geography in the knowledge economy based on regional knowledge capabilities. He describes regional knowledge capabilities as the theoretical underpinning for the widely observed rise of regional innovation systems and within them knowledgeable clusters (Cooke, 2005, p.1144).

4 KIBS as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics 155 Nevertheless, for our purpose, it does not seem to be enough to underline these differences and heterogeneity, but rather to highlight the following commonalities, which we will build on as the conceptual foundation of the paper. For a deeper understanding of knowledge dynamics in firm, sectors and territorial contexts, two key conceptions the knowledge bases and the competencies or capabilities of agents, as elusive as they might be are major determinants that affect knowledge dynamics. The widely acknowledged cumulative nature of knowledge that leads to the formation of specific knowledge bases, often synonymously called stocks of knowledge, that exist at multiple levels ranging from individuals to nation states. Competencies and capabilities can be understood as a kind of metastructure (Malerba and Orsenigo, 2000) for focusing on the way in which knowledge is elicited, validated, transformed and integrated by agents for specific purposes and applied to specific contexts. Both the knowledge base and the capabilities evolve over time and have a path-dependent nature owing to the cumulativeness of knowledge. In addition, both are subject to dynamic change that results from interaction and learning processes. Generally, the ongoing internationalisation of economic activities promotes knowledge dynamics by facilitating interaction and communication processes between individual and collective agents in time and space which, in turn, are the bases of knowledge creation, implicit and explicit knowledge sharing and knowledge diffusion. The mutually reinforcing processes of deregulation and liberalisation of product and service markets, together with new developments in ICT that increase access to spatially distributed knowledge stocks, are pulling down barriers to knowledge flows and enhancing the connectivity of international factor markets and the mobility of skilled workforces. Additionally, information and communication technologies contribute to the growing tradability of knowledge by facilitating the codification of knowledge and its commodification. The intensification of competition caused by economic globalisation is a strong driver for innovation processes. Knowledge dynamics and innovation processes are highly interrelated. KIBS seem to play an important role in pushing knowledge dynamics in different contexts, contributing to the change of knowledge bases and competencies and to the capability building of agents, as we will discuss in the following section. 3 KIBS: a knowledge-processing and knowledge-producing industry KIBS firms are organisations that are at the front line and are particularly representative for knowledge economies. Knowledge is both their main input and output (Gallouj, 2002; Miles, 2001) and their primary value-added activities consist of the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge for the purpose of developing customised service solutions (Bettencourt et al., 2002). The knowledge markets in which KIBS act are highly fluid, rapidly changing and characterised by a high degree of uncertainty resulting from ambiguity with regard to performance, quality and appropriateness. The definition of KIBS is therefore a task that research has been dealing with for decades and KIBS research is usually confronted with the problem of grasping this heterogeneous segment of service activities. Furthermore, in functional terms, KIBS are provided not only by service firms; they are also organised within industrial firms. Large firms have in-house service providers, organised as

5 156 S. Strambach separate departments or firm units, which provide services to the firm s different business units, their so-called internal clients. Other providers such as public and semipublic Research and Technological Organisations (RTO) also offer KIBS. This paper is focused on firms that provide knowledge-intensive business services in the marketplace as their main product. It can be argued that KIBS do not represent a sector in the traditional sense. In conventional statistical terms, the criterion for a firm to belong to a particular sector is the product or the service, which is responsible for the major part of its value-added. Sectors, however, can also be differentiated in relation to their specific economic and technological conditions, their knowledge base, and their types and structures of interactions among firms and non-firm organisations, as well as with respect to sector-specific institutions. This is argued when sectoral systems and institutional approaches are used (Malerba, 2005; Hollingsworth and Boyer, 1997; Hall and Soskice, 2001). Firms in a sector nevertheless have some commonalities and, at the same time, they are heterogeneous (Malerba, 2005). Following a governance perspective, common characteristics of KIBS can be clearly identified from the research, which allows these firms to be considered as a definable sector. There are three main features that provide the links between the heterogeneous KIBS branches: 1 Knowledge is not only a key production factor of the firms, it is also the good they sell. For the most part, the firms provide non-material intangible services. Specialised expert knowledge, research and development ability, and problem solving are the real products of KIBS. 2 The provision of these knowledge-intensive services requires in-depth interaction between supplier and user and both parties are involved in cumulative learning processes. The utilisation of knowledge-intensive services cannot simply be equated with the purchase of standardised external services. 3 The third important common aspect of all KIBS branches is that the activity of consulting, understood as a process of problem solving in which KIBS adapt their expertise and expert knowledge to the needs of the client, makes up, to different degrees, the content of the interaction process between KIBS and their customers. These characteristics are responsible for sector-specific governance mechanisms, which coordinate the transactions and interactions within and across the borders of the sector. Meanwhile, in international studies it is empirically well documented that formal and informal network relationships, references, reputation and long-term relationships together make up a key function as coordination mechanisms in interaction processes between KIBS and their customers as well as among KIBS firms themselves (Boden and Miles, 2000; Tödtling et al., 2006; Glückler and Armbruster, 2003; Wood, 2002). Project-based work is the dominant form of work organisation, because of the need for a high degree of flexibility and the provision of client-specific and, at the same time, comprehensive solutions. Even though networking and project organisation are becoming more important in many industrial sectors for KIBS firms, they have always been the conventional forms. 2 The following section focuses on the knowledge content of the products of KIBS with the aim of analysing their knowledge base in relation to different knowledge types and knowledge domains.

6 KIBS as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics The content perspective: composite knowledge bases and composite knowledge products Compared to knowledge-based approaches, innovation approaches have a long tradition of focusing on processes of knowledge creation and diffusion of firms, mainly within the context of technological change. The understanding of distinct sector differences with regard to the exploration of, and processes for transforming, technological and science-based knowledge into artefacts has made substantial progress. Evolutionary innovation research that focuses on industrial dynamics and evolution of industries provides theoretical and empirical evidence that industrial sectors tend to vary systematically with regard to their knowledge bases, which, in turn, tend to strongly shape the innovation processes of firms. The firm s knowledge base determines both what it actually produces and what new search processes are directed towards (Patel and Pavitt, 1997; Pavitt, 1984). Patterns of innovation are cumulative, and different principal activities of firms generate different technological trajectories over time that, in turn, shape innovation processes. The knowledge base refers to the key dimension of knowledge considered relevant for innovative activities of an industry, as Malerba and Orsenigo (2000) stress. Inspired by and based on Pavitt s (1984) taxonomy that differentiates between supplier-dominated, production-intensive, and science-based industries, two types of knowledge bases are distinguished: analytical and synthetical. It is argued, that innovation processes of industries with a dominant analytical or synthetic knowledge base are distinctly different in their knowledge formation processes, the significance of specific skills and the relative importance and nature of organisations and institutions in innovation processes. Compared to many mature industrial and manufacturing industries, the evolution of KIBS is only a recent development. The term industry implies a certain kind of division of labour and the use of industrial production methods, neither of which is very pronounced in the KIBS sector. Hence, approaching KIBS from an industrial viewpoint is not common in KIBS research. Furthermore, it has become obvious that, for particular industrial sectors, types of knowledge or knowledge categories 3 differ with regard to how important they are for these sectors knowledge bases. An analytical knowledge base dominates in industries in which science-based knowledge is highly important, and in which knowledge creation is often based on formal models, codified science and rational search processes. Industrial sectors with a predominantly analytical knowledge stock include, for example, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology (Pavitt, 1984; Asheim and Gertler, 2005, p.296). A synthetic knowledge base is characteristic for industrial settings where innovation takes place mainly through the application of existing knowledge or through the new combination of knowledge. Specialised industrial machinery or plant engineering are often taken as industry examples (Asheim and Gertler, 2005, p.295; Asheim and Coenen, 2006). Knowledge is created more in complex and specific client problem-solving and less in a deductive way as is the case for analytical science-based industries. In innovation research, KIBS are mostly considered as a unit owing to their relatively recent dynamic evolution. Systematic analyses of specific knowledge bases and their influence on knowledge processes among the heterogeneous service segments are therefore scarce. In addition, their heterogeneity and close interaction with clients in the service production process are also factors that make it difficult to map out the specific knowledge types of their knowledge base that are dominant for innovation activities.

7 158 S. Strambach Gallouj (2002, p.274), for example, stresses the fact that the knowledge stocks drawn on by KIBS as the main input for their services are essentially the product of knowledge-based on past experience that has been memorised. However, KIBS services are becoming more and more diversified as the sector grows and matures. In the rest of the paper the evolutionary knowledge economic perspective will be transferred to the KIBS industry with the aim of contributing to a deeper understanding of their role and involvement in knowledge dynamics Knowledge categories and the location of KIBS knowledge bases The main knowledge categories outlined in the literature characterising particular knowledge bases of industries are the analytical and synthetical knowledge types. These different knowledge categories can be distinguished by their epistemic content and their epistemic rules that relate to knowledge processes. Knorr-Cetina (1999) who explores an interiorised theory of knowledge, interested in breaking open and specifying the processes that make knowledge (Knorr-Cetina and Preda, 2001) provides empirical evidence that the unfolding of knowledge is very different in its dependence on its epistemic content and epistemic embeddedness. As mentioned above, an analytical knowledge base dominates in industries in which science-based knowledge is highly important. Processes are formally organised and the output tends to be documented in reports, electronic files or patent descriptions (Asheim and Gertler, 2005). In the KIBS sector, this kind of knowledge creation is generally not very important, except for R&D service firms, which in recent years have been a small but dynamically growing subsector in European countries. Small, highly specialised R&D service firms providing contract research for large multinational pharmaceutical corporations are empirically documented examples. The content of the specific knowledge products of these firms is, to a large degree, made up of analytical knowledge that also plays an important role for their knowledge base. The KIBS sectors that are more dominant in Europe in quantitative terms technical engineering and data processing services, also called t-kibs (technology-based KIBS cf. Miles et al., 1996; den Hertog, 2000) focus instead on synthetic knowledge. Examples are technical engineering firms that provide product development services or prototype development for the automotive industry, or software firms that provide simulations for finite element calculations. The knowledge processes of these subsectors correspond with the one described for industrial settings with a dominant synthetic knowledge base (Asheim and Gertler, 2005; Asheim and Coenen, 2006). Tacit knowledge is relatively more important than in R&D services with a dominant analytical knowledge base. This is due to the inductive way of knowledge creation through the new combination of existing knowledge parts based on experiences in learning by doing, using and interacting processes aimed at solving the user s specific problems. A third type of knowledge that is particularly important for KIBS industries is symbolic knowledge. This knowledge category is largely recognised in research on cultural industries and cannot be traced back to Pavitt s taxonomy. Cultural industries or what are often called creative industries are services industries such as film making, music, fashion, theatre, publishing or advertising and design (Scott, 1997; Caves, 2002). KIBS subsectors such as marketing and advertising are heavily dependent on symbolic knowledge dealing with ideas, symbols and socially constructed commodities.

8 KIBS as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics 159 The cultural embeddedness of interpretations, habits and norms is made responsible for the strong tacit component that characterises this type of knowledge base (Mariussen and Asheim, 2003). As a result of this differentiation, the knowledge types mainly dealt with by KIBS are those of synthetic, symbolic and, to a lesser degree, analytical knowledge. Although KIBS subsectors have a focal point in one type of knowledge base, as shown in Figure 1, most KIBS subsectors have amalgamated knowledge bases that combine and join different knowledge categories at different scales (illustrated by the outer circle in the figure). Architectural services, for instance, exemplify how closely technical engineering knowledge and symbolic knowledge are intertwined. The same can be said for economic services such as management consultancy or software services, which operate with both synthetic and symbolic knowledge. In many traditional segments of knowledge-intensive services, the introduction of new ICT has brought about huge structural changes. Management consultants, for example, have integrated information and communication technology consulting services; advertising agencies offer multimedia services; and technological services such as software firms provide management consulting. A tendency to converge is observed among KIBS (cf. Toivonen, 2004) and is induced by the need to provide comprehensive problem solutions for clients while being highly specialised. This tension is a strong driver for KIBS to integrate knowledge units from diverse categories on different scales into their knowledge base, in order to be able to deliver composite knowledge products. The composite nature of their knowledge products may contribute to knowledge dynamics by complementing or changing the knowledge base of their clients if these have the competencies for integrating the external knowledge bits. Figure 1 The focal points of KIBS sub-sectors in the different knowledge categories Source: Strambach et al. (2007) own figure

9 160 S. Strambach Knowledge phases in the knowledge value chain For defining a general knowledge value chain, the distinguishing exploration examination exploitation can be considered as the dynamic element that describes the enhancement and processing of knowledge units on the way towards their transformation into commercially valuable knowledge products. According to March (1991), knowledge exploration is a process of finding new economic opportunities in order to profit from these and this entails search and discovery activities and risk taking. Knowledge in the exploration phase involves some uncertainty and requires dealing with risks, because, compared to knowledge in the exploitation phase, economic returns are systematically less certain. Cooke (2005) proposes examination as a third phase between exploration and exploitation in which testing, experimentation and validation activities are aimed at improving the knowledge content with regard to its appropriateness for commercial value added. In some industrial sectors, contexts, especially those in which analytical knowledge makes up a large part of the knowledge base, these distinct stages appear to describe appropriately the relationship between different kinds of knowledge in the transformation and developing process. With regard to particular innovations, the interpretation of the phases in the knowledge value chain is adequate, even though there might be feedback-loops connecting phases in a backward direction. 4 The knowledge products of the different KIBS subsectors have focal points in the knowledge value chain (Figure 2). The major share of the products of technical services and IT services, and also economic and marketing services, are located in the examination and exploitation stages of the knowledge value chain. The knowledge products contribute to an often very complex application context or to applied problem-solving processes. While it is obvious from empirical research that KIBS support knowledge exploitation and examination processes, their contribution to knowledge exploration remains obscure. Responsible for this is, amongst other things, that for a long time knowledge in the exploration stage has been determined by the R&D approach with the main focus being on the creation of new science and technological knowledge units. According to Djellal et al. (2003), the concept of R&D is, to a large degree, responsible for the underestimation of knowledge exploration in services. The systematic nature of knowledge creation using scientific methods and experimentation and an appreciable element of novelty in the knowledge product are the fundamental principles underlying the R&D concept. With this focus, the approach is directed towards capturing the epistemic rules of knowledge creation in analytical science-based and synthetic knowledge fields, but, to a large extent, it ignores the epistemic rules in knowledge creation processes related to symbolic knowledge. However, research in innovation in services in particular shows that KIBS operate in all three knowledge phases (see Table 1) and correspond with all knowledge categories, even those with a focal point in synthetic and symbolic knowledge domains. The internal processes of knowledge creation are only weakly formalised, as has been shown by empirical research (Hauknes, 2000; Sundbo, 2000; Marklund, 2000). 5 In contrast to manufacturing firms, most KIBS firms do not distinguish R&D activities systematically in organisational terms. A project-based, ad hoc development of new knowledge in customer relations and at the interface with customers is characteristic for knowledge-intensive service firms. Knowledge exploration, examination and exploitation often overlap and take place simultaneously while some phases may be skipped

10 KIBS as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics 161 altogether by this mode of knowledge production. Correspondingly, knowledge exploitation of KIBS also has features that differ from those of many industrial sector firms. The protection of intellectual property rights by means of patents is directed primarily towards technological knowledge, which is directly relevant to only some KIBS. Because of the diversity of the sector, it is starting to play a role in some subsectors, such as the software service sector or parts of engineering services, but it is hardly possible to protect advances in symbolic knowledge based on aesthetic creativity. Exploitation through formal IPR methods of protecting knowledge have little relevance to many KIBS firms, partly because new knowledge is largely embodied in people and embedded in networks. The high volatility of knowledge markets, especially those dealing with symbolic knowledge, as well as the client-specific nature of many KIBS products, to a large extent limits the commercial advantage establishing IPs (Miles and Boden, 2000). Figure 2 The focal points of KIBS sub-sectors in knowledge categories and phases Source: Strambach et al. (2007) own figure Table 1 Examples of KIBS activities in different knowledge categories and knowledge phases Phase Analytical Synthetic Symbolic Exploration Contract research Contract development Experimental engineering Pre-design Market research Scouting Open space Examination Testing and validation Feasibility studies Prototyping Design Market estimation Proof of concept Strategic consulting Exploitation Patenting Series-production readiness Marketing campaign Branding Source: Strambach et al. (2007)

11 162 S. Strambach To summarise, owing to their operation in all three knowledge phases of the knowledge value chain, KIBS support knowledge dynamics and correspond to all knowledge types, even those with a focal point in the synthetic and symbolic knowledge realms. Most KIBS firms are designed to make heterogeneous knowledge bases available to their clients in an integrated way with their composite knowledge products Knowledge domains and composite knowledge products Distinguishing knowledge categories is indeed important, but it constitutes only part of the relevant dimension of the knowledge that KIBS trade with. For identifying and understanding the role of KIBS in knowledge dynamics especially at the sector level, we introduce vertical and horizontal knowledge domains. KIBS operate in complex horizontal and vertical knowledge domains and their own knowledge bases are located in these domains. Malerba and Orsenigo (2000) introduce the notion of knowledge domains as an important dimension of firms and industrial evolution. Domains of knowledge affect the type of competencies and the competition in an industry. As an example they point out the basic distinction between knowledge about technology and knowledge about demand. Over time, firms develop competencies that are highly sector- and technology-specific and they also develop competencies, which are related to the specific features of users and demand. Figure 3 KIBS linkages to vertical and horizontal knowledge domains

12 KIBS as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics 163 Additionally, we introduce the distinction between horizontal and vertical knowledge domains and claim that these are important for the understanding of KIBS evolution and the special knowledge dynamics within, and in interaction with, KIBS at the sector level. We define horizontal knowledge domains with respect to business functions and understand vertical knowledge domains as sector-specific knowledge. KIBS are acting in complex horizontal and vertical knowledge domains which force them to combine and reconfigure knowledge units very flexibly from various knowledge categories and knowledge bases by producing customised knowledge products. The ongoing restructuring of the value chain, combined with the increasing interdependence of technological and organisational change at the corporate level (Tidd et al., 2005), is leading to the increasing complexity of horizontal and vertical knowledge domains. KIBS appear to be responding to the increasing need for coordination, communication and organisation caused by these developments with both their composite knowledge products and the mode they use in producing their services. Horizontal knowledge domains (or functional knowledge domains) connected to business functions have been undergoing an increasing technological and organisational complexity. Business functions such as production, R&D, marketing, financial and data processing or human resource management are generic in the sense that they apply across many different sectors/industries. The vertical disintegration in production has been going on for a long time (cf. Dicken, 2003), whereas the increasing organisational decomposition of more intangible business service processes, enabled through ICT, is a recent development that is leading to further fragmentation of value chains. Modularisation and externalisation processes in intangible business services and recently in R&D, and thus in knowledge creation processes itself, have led to the further break-up of company structures and to new hybrid organisational forms. These processes are reinforcing the complexity of knowledge domains around business functions and are creating new proximity distant relationships between multiple intra- and interorganisational actors not only in organisational and spatial terms but, above all, in institutional and cognitive terms. In addition to fragmentation processes, the ongoing vertical specialisation of industries is driven by the dynamic reconfiguration of value chains (cf. Humphrey and Schmitz, 2004). Vertical specialisation is displaying industry-specific characteristics that seem to be rooted in related different technological and market characteristics (Macher and Mowery, 2004). Hence, vertical domain knowledge becomes more complex as sector specialisation continues to advance. Vertical disintegration and specialisation processes in industries, as well as modularity and standardisation at the corporate level, are generating more interfaces between diverse knowledge using and producing units, thus creating the need for communication and coordination of knowledge exchange and implicit and explicit knowledge sharing. KIBS are responding with their knowledge product specialisation to this development, or are even beginning to emerge, typically along sector-oriented knowledge domains. Examples are specialised software producing firms especially for the financial services or the telecommunications sectors. In innovation research, KIBS are mostly considered to be a unit, but, like other maturing sectors, KIBS are characterised by increasing differentiation and specialisation in subsectors.

13 164 S. Strambach 3.2 The relational perspective: interaction and learning processes in knowledge production The paper is centred around the special way KIBS contribute to multilevel knowledge dynamics and makes the case that this is due to both the composite nature of their knowledge products and the way they produce these. The latter is the focus of the following section. Client participation in the delivery process of the knowledge-intensive service product is a fundamental characteristic for KIBS and is very different from the production process in other industries. It is different insofar as clients are directly involved in the added value activities. Three processes the contextualisation, de- and re-contextualisation of knowledge play an important role in exploring general linkages between knowledge processes and knowledge dynamics in KIBS client interactions. These processes are especially shaping the contribution to multilevel knowledge dynamics. KIBS are specialists in the contextualisation of knowledge, this is evident implicitly from substantial empirical and theoretical research in the field. Contributions from innovation in services and systems of innovation research are emphasising KIBS firms as innovation or knowledge agents (e.g., Bessant and Rush, 2000; Miles et al., 1996; Muller and Doloreux, 2007; Strambach, 2001; Wood, 2002). Important functions are described, such as transferring technological knowledge and management know-how, exchanging experience-based knowledge and best practices from different branch contexts, integrating different stocks of knowledge and competencies and adapting existing knowledge to the specific needs of the clients. These functions refer to the knowledge contextualisation as an essential process that fosters knowledge dynamics by being conducive to the change of knowledge bases of client firms. Whilst the contextualisation process itself has been widely described, research is lacking with regard to the determinants fostering or hindering successful knowledge contextualisation. Within the contextualisation process, client capabilities are a key factor in achieving performance gains. As indicated by Bettencourt et al. (2002, p.101) clients have different roles to play, and different responsibilities to meet, in these intensive interaction processes. They argue that, clients must effectively perform a variety of roles as they serve as co-creators, co-producers of the knowledge-based solutions. Clients themselves have knowledge and competences, which they must be willing to bring into shared problem-solving during the delivery process of the knowledge-based service. In other words, clients are directly involved in the added value of the knowledge product, which in turn is a source of uncertainty for KIBS providers. The quality of knowledge production is thus the result of cumulative learning processes that are determined by the competence and experience of the KIBS producer and also by the capability of the clients to use external knowledge and to integrate it into their own knowledge base and, not the least, the capability of both agents to design the interaction process. In KIBS research there has been little detailed examination of different kinds of interaction processes and their impacts on knowledge processes such as knowledge contextualisation. Not all KIBS transactions constitute the generation of new knowledge for their respective clients, knowledge-processing in client interaction may be either exploitation or exploration, as Gallouj (2002, p.281) underlines. Different kinds of interaction process may be influential to knowledge dynamics in varying degrees. Additionally, Grimshaw and Miozzo (2006) emphasise that research on KIBS has to date

14 KIBS as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics 165 tended to rely on the use of broad taxonomies with regard to interaction relations, and the influences of institutional and organisational characteristics of different sectors are underexplored. Turning from the processing of knowledge within a given service relationship to the knowledge production of KIBS firms, the process of de-contextualisation is a main mechanism. KIBS have the capability for producing new knowledge from this accumulated and experience-based knowledge through de-contextualisation. We define de-contextualisation as the deliberate process of extracting experience-based and procedural-based knowledge from its client and project-specific contexts, to combine and reconfigure it with the preexisting knowledge base in order to develop new knowledge products. KIBS firms acquire explicit and tacit knowledge from a variety of client contexts in the course of the provision of the service. They learn the main characteristics of their customers over time and develop competencies that are related to the specific contexts of clients vertical as well as horizontal knowledge domains. De-contextualisation is a process characterised by multiplicity and a strong collective dimension whose aim is to unleash accumulated procedural and experimental knowledge units from their context-dependence. There has been little exploration of the de-contextualisation process in KIBS research itself, which is mostly concentrated at the firm level. KIBS are companies that work mainly on a project base (Section 3) where repeated tasks are not the norm. Therefore these organisations learning and capability development usually take place during projects. The recently developing literature strand on innovation in project-based environments throws some light on the de-contextualisation process even if not explicitly named as such. As Acha et al. (2005) show for project-based firms, capabilities are often located at the organisational edges of the firms. Djellal et al. (2003) refer to the interface as the locus where the interactivity occurs that constitutes one of the fundamental driving forces for, one of the targets of, and one of the laboratories for research in service activities. A common practice for KIBS firms is to carry out knowledge processing in cross-functional and interdisciplinary project teams and communities of practice composed of both client and KIBS staff. Project learning, or episodic learning, (Gann and Salter, 2000; Acha et al., 2005) involves relationships between learning by individuals, project teams and across project-based firms and includes cross-sectoral learning. These firms operate in a multi-actor environment and thus the de-contextualisation process entails the unleashing of dispersed experience-based knowledge components bound to practice contexts of individual and collective knowledge agents in complex project configurations or what Grabher (2004) called project ecologies. The de-contextualisation implies knowledge codification of accumulated experience-based knowledge and procedural-based knowledge mainly attained by group-level learning in projects. The formation of new knowledge products through de-contextualisation in turn opens up new opportunities for KIBS to interact with their customers. In a certain sense, KIBS create their own markets (Strambach, 2001). A third process, which we call re-contextualisation, plays an important role for the contribution of the KIBS sector to knowledge dynamics. Re-contextualisation can be understood as the process of direct contextualisation of individual or collective tacit knowledge without it being transformed through codification. 6 Knowledge codification aims at reducing and converting knowledge into explicit knowledge and facilitates its exchange and valorisation. It is, however, widely acknowledged that knowledge can be transferred without codification. As Cohendent and Meyer-Krahmer (2001, p.1565)

15 166 S. Strambach point out, codification processes themselves are context-dependent. There are contexts where agents are willing to invest more into codifying knowledge and others in which they use and reinforce their tacit knowledge. The discontinuous and temporary nature of project-based service production by KIBS firms acts as a significant brake on knowledge codification and, in turn, fosters re-contextualisation processes. For project-based firms, the costs for codification are high and hinder the exploitation of systematic knowledge. The highly customised service solutions and the multiplicity and collective dimension of de-contextualisation processes increase the use of tacit knowledge and its exploitation in the application. Knowledge creation in the mode of the interactive (social) construction of a solution to a particular client problem in a complex application context is typical for KIBS. The term ad hoc innovation is used in service innovation research for describing this result (Gallouj, 2002). Furthermore, new complex projects provide the opportunity to build up new capabilities in fast-changing knowledge markets. Thus it is more attractive for KIBS firms to engage in new projects than to invest in knowledge codification of organisational-dispersed implicit knowledge for capturing and storing it. Hence, under these conditions, the direct contextualisation of experience-based tacit knowledge is supported through its adaptation in project contexts and project learning. Summarising, the organisation of knowledge is a key issue for KIBS and, as argued, knowledge contents are closely interwoven with knowledge actions in this sector. Three processes the contextualisation, de- and re-contextualisation of knowledge can be seen as main mechanisms through which KIBS shape knowledge dynamics beyond their own sector boundaries. Through these processes they seem to support tendencies both towards specialisation and towards diversification of knowledge and thus contribute markedly to knowledge dynamics. The following section returns to the main argument of the paper, summarises how KIBS are driving knowledge dynamics in different contexts and outlines future research challenges. 4 KIBS as drivers of knowledge dynamics on the firm, sectoral and territorial level The paper makes the case that KIBS contribute to knowledge dynamics in a unique and essential way. Knowledge dynamics are understood as emerging through changes in knowledge and the various ways knowledge moves, is transformed and created. Changes in knowledge make up the driving force behind innovation. Two major determinants are identified as affecting knowledge dynamics in generic terms: the existing knowledge base and the competencies of agents. It is argued that KIBS fosters multilevel knowledge dynamics in firms, sector and territorial contexts by influencing knowledge bases and competencies of agents through both the specific characteristic of their composite knowledge products and the way in which these are produced. In innovation research, KIBS are mostly considered as a unit, but these services are becoming more and more diversified as the sector is maturing. In order to advance the study of KIBS-induced knowledge dynamics, the view of KIBS as a black box needs to be rejected and broadened into a more differentiated one, which includes above all the diversity of their knowledge bases and knowledge products and the intrafirm and interfirm processes. The heterogeneous KIBS sector is influenced by knowledge dynamics at different levels of analysis and in return influences and drives them.

16 KIBS as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics 167 The application of different knowledge categories (analytic, synthetic, symbolic) enables the identification of distinct knowledge bases of the KIBS subsectors and the composite nature of their knowledge-based service products. With these products, KIBS act as drivers of knowledge dynamics at the firm level by complementing or changing the knowledge base of their clients. The knowledge types mainly dealt with by KIBS are those of synthetic, symbolic and, to a lesser degree, analytical knowledge. Even the KIBS subsectors are focused on particular knowledge categories; as shown, they are not limited to these. Most KIBS subsectors have merged knowledge bases composed of highly skilled staff that combine and join different knowledge categories at different scales. They integrate different knowledge units into composite knowledge-based service products and this enables them to deliver knowledge from contexts in which their clients are not usually embedded in. KIBS are intermediaries of knowledge and, because of their competences in interconnecting heterogeneous knowledge domains, they often spread over organisational and spatial boundaries. It is widely acknowledged that the interaction processes between KIBS and their clients is the central mechanism of knowledge creation and knowledge processing (cf. Bettencourt et al., 2002; den Hertog, 2000; Miles, 2005; Muller and Doloreux, 2007; Wood, 2002). The knowledge contents are closely interwoven with knowledge actions; therefore, they foster knowledge dynamics by contributing to problem identification and problem solving and thus subsequently to knowledge articulation, sharing and reconfiguration. In these interaction processes KIBS carry out communication and coordination functions by using and establishing linkages and networks and spanning diverse organisational, institutional and spatial boundaries. They thus seem to be enhancing the interaction and communication density of distinct knowledge bases. KIBS firms operate in all knowledge phases along the generic knowledge value chain. However, a challenge for further research is to sort out more systematically the interaction processes in knowledge exploration, examination, and exploitation with regard to commonalities and differences of KIBS that have their focal knowledge base in analytical, synthetical and symbolic knowledge. Apart from this direct input into the knowledge dynamics by changing and transforming the knowledge bases of their clients, they also facilitate their absorptive capacity and improve their competitiveness (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). These indirect effects on knowledge dynamics may be a result of interaction and learning processes that contribute to clients capability building. Knowledge contextualisation is a key process that facilitates the absorption of external knowledge. Furthermore, they directly and indirectly contribute to the knowledge dynamics at a sectoral level. The dominant feature of the KIBS sector is its dynamic interconnections with other sectoral contexts. By extracting knowledge from different sectors and recombining it in different sectoral contexts they contribute at the same time to specialisation and diversification. Besides being specialists in the contextualisation and reconfiguring existing knowledge units, these firms are characterised by their dynamic capability to de-contextualise knowledge and to transfer it to new contexts using mixed types of horizontal and vertical knowledge domains. Additionally the re-contextualisation of implicit knowledge is a special competence of KIBS firms, which accelerates the diffusion of implicit knowledge among sectoral contexts. Simmie and Strambach (2006) emphasise the important interlinkages between sectors, multisectoral collaborations and the integration of multiple actors, private and non-private institutions and small and large

17 168 S. Strambach firms that result from knowledge interaction with KIBS. Sectoral systems are undergoing change and transformation triggered by technological convergence between sectors and the development of platform technologies. Despite the redefinition of sectoral relations in the knowledge-based economy into vertical knowledge domains and technological platforms, sector contexts determine knowledge processes and differ in terms of their knowledge dynamics (cf. Malerba, 2005). Especially with regard to path dependencies and the cumulativeness of knowledge, knowledge dynamics have sector-specific characteristics in terms of speed and intensity. Comparing the co-evolution of sectoral knowledge dynamics and KIBS specialisation in horizontal and vertical knowledge domains in different socio-institutional contexts could provide new insights into how they drive knowledge dynamics in different sectors to varying degrees. At the territorial level, KIBS are likely to have indirect rather than direct effects on knowledge dynamics. While they surely directly drive what Cooke calls dynamic regional capabilities (Cooke, 2005), it is nevertheless difficult to estimate, or even quantify, the extent of such direct contributions. At a territorial level, multiple dynamics interfere with each other and little is known up to now about the interactions between them and the extent to which KIBS are driving these knowledge dynamics. What we do know is that the majority of KIBS are small- to medium-sized firms and act primarily in regional to national contexts. However, as internationalisation is becoming more important, the transfer of local knowledge to other regional and national contexts is, to a large extent, being promoted by KIBS. Owing to both their capabilities for spanning different territorial and sectoral contexts and their own internationalisation that has recently been observed (cf. Roberts, 2000; Toivonen, 2002), KIBS are also driving knowledge dynamics on a territorial level. Muller and Doloreux (2007, p.18) have been examining the last decade of KIBS research and have come to the conclusion that researchers have mainly attempted to analyse the location of KIBS and the factors that explain their growth. In order to grasp the complexities of KIBS knowledge dynamics in a territorial context, two main levels for further investigation can be identified. Firstly, there has been very little exploration of the ways in which KIBS involvement is determined by regional and national institutional landscapes. With respect to regional and national locational factors that influence KIBS, empirical studies can provide some clues about knowledge dynamics. These are mirrored in national and regional disparities of KIBS distribution and obviously diverge considerably, depending on the characteristics of the respective territorial level. There is no universal pattern for the evolution of KIBS; there are only national varieties. Most interestingly, investigations into the spatial organisation of KIBS in European countries show not only considerable regional disparities but also variations in the regional importance of individual KIBS segments in urban regions. The nation- and region-specific distributions of KIBS in general, and the specialisation of KIBS branches indicate that these service segments have a region-specific shape and development path, which cannot be explained by the infrastructure provision or pure agglomeration advantages alone. The large body of literature on national systems of innovation provides strong evidence that national institutional and historical factors are extremely important for explaining the differences in the structural and sectoral setup of national industries (Freeman, 1988; Lundvall, 1998; Nelson, 1993). According to this line of thought, systems of innovation shape knowledge dynamics by determining the interactive

18 KIBS as drivers of multilevel knowledge dynamics 169 behaviour of KIBS and the ways these are integrated into clients industries (Muller and Zenker, 2001, p.1514). They also determine the division of labour between (semi) public research and transfer organisations and private sector KIBS (Farina and Preissl, 2000, p.15). Furthermore, regional knowledge bases and their institutional settings seem to influence the foundation of KIBS firms (Koch and Stahlecker, 2006). The evolutionary and institutional economics perspectives derived from the path dependence of learning processes and the accumulation of knowledge, and which are also developing recently in evolutionary economic geography, provide a usable approach for dealing with KIBS knowledge dynamics. The institutional setup and production structures are thus assumed to co-evolve over time and these designate the configuration of processes of innovation. The institutional context of regions, the regional pattern of demand, and the political governance are thus all presumed to have a major influence on the development and specialisation of KIBS. Furthermore, institutions are potentially important, given that evolution of the KIBS sector very much depends on complex, often long-term relationships with client firms in other sectors of the economy (cf. Grimshaw and Miozzo, 2006). Another valuable approach is to focus explicitly on aspects of learning that are coupled with the influence of institutional contexts. Empirical investigations into the spatial organisation show clearly that KIBS are concentrated strongly in fast-growing urban areas. As a result of their tendency to concentrate in space (cf. Moulaert and Tödtling, 1995; Keeble and Nachum, 2002; Strambach, 2004; Toivonnen, 2002; Wood, 1996), core metropolitan regions are the spatial units in which knowledge dynamics of KIBS are most likely to unfold. For knowledge-intensive firms that operate in highly fluid and competitive markets, spatial concentration offers significant advantages that are connected with the production and diffusion of knowledge in proximity and distance interactions and with individual and collective learning processes. Secondly, in further research the implications of KIBS involvement for territorial knowledge dynamics need to be taken into consideration. Since these aspects have largely been neglected in KIBS research, we suggest advancing the questioning beyond present KIBS research and focusing on the interplay of KIBS and regional economical trajectories. Addressing this relationship in theoretical and empirical terms is also an important issue from a political perspective. Several impacts of KIBS to the performance of the territorial knowledge dynamics can be assumed: KIBS may facilitate regional trajectories and drive knowledge dynamics in a particular direction, reinforcing the existing uneven knowledge endowment of well-established innovating regions. In this way they contribute to dynamic stability and renewal of regional trajectories. KIBS also have the potential to open up established regional knowledge trajectories and to create new paths as they are not limited to one single knowledge domain. KIBS contribute to the de-contextualisation of knowledge, promote particularly the mobility of tacit and implicit knowledge and thus make the migration of knowledge and its spatial dispersion easier. However, there is still a lack of empirical evidence that illustrates the spatial variation in the subsectoral configuration of the KIBS industry and the need for in-depth cross-regional comparisons. Thus, the extent to which KIBS knowledge dynamics are

19 170 S. Strambach determined by regional and local factors largely remains an open question. The same holds true for the knowledge processes in the interrelation of KIBS and regional economies. Especially research linking quantitative and qualitative analysis could provide new insights into these issues. 5 Conclusion The paper argues that KIBS are developing into a knowledge-processing and knowledge-producing industry. Knowledge is not only the key production factor of these service firms, it is also the good they sell. They are involved in interactions of the use of knowledge for economic purposes and the conversion of knowledge for economic gain and value added. The main part of the paper is centred on the point that a deeper understanding of the contribution of KIBS to multilevel knowledge dynamics has to cope with a differentiated analysis of types of knowledge bases and knowledge domains and knowledge processing. Even though both an industrial kind of labour division and the use of industrial production methods are not very pronounced in the KIBS sector, as the sector grows and matures these services become more and more diversified. A number of changes and developments that have commonalities with processes in manufacturing industries can be observed. For example, in some subsectors such as the software industry with a dominant synthetical knowledge base, standardisation and modularisation processes in knowledge-intensive activities foster tradability of knowledge products and geographical dispersion. Enhancing the individual, group, and firm aggregation levels and taking the interorganisational dimension into account are particularly important for exploring the knowledge production of KIBS firms in proximity and distance interactions. The development of organisational models and routines for managing different kinds of knowledge processes and mechanisms for integrating knowledge beyond intra- and interfirm boundaries are not well understood. These issues make an analysis for deepening the theoretical and empirical insights into the contribution of KIBS to the dynamics of the knowledge-based economy particularly interesting. References Acha, V., Gann, D. and Salter, A. (2005) Episodic innovation: R&D strategies for project-based environments, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp Amin, A. and Cohendent, P. (2004) Architectures of Knowledge: Firms, Capabilities and Communities, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Antonelli, C. (2005) Models of knowledge and systems of governance, Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp Asheim, B. and Coenen, L. (2006) Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: on knowledge bases and institutional frameworks, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 31, pp Asheim, B. and Gertler, M.S. (2005) The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems, in J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery and R.R. Nelson (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press, pp Bessant, J. and Rush, P. (2000) Innovation agents and technology transfer, in M. Boden and I. Miles (Eds.) Services and the Knowledge-based Economy, London, NY: Routledge, pp

STAGE 1 STANDARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ROLE DESCRIPTION - THE MATURE, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER The following characterises the senior practice role that the mature, Professional Engineer may be expected

Key knowledge providers as sources of innovation in firms Manuel Fernández-Esquinas Irene Ramos-Vielba Carmen Merchán-Hernández Institute for Advanced Social Studies Spanish National Research Council mfernandez@iesa.csic.es

The role of knowledge-intensive business in innovation processes EZEQUIEL BARÓ Within all activities related to production, business play an important role. This sector has had the highest and steadiest

Chapter 5 Supply chain management in the ERP industry 5.1 Introduction Supply chain management is a management philosophy that takes a systems approach to viewing the supply chain as a single entity (Mentzer

INTRODUCTION: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS? Jackie Krafft Today, industrial dynamics is considered to be among the most interesting and rewarding fields of research. There are various reasons

National Systems of Innovation - on the importance of experienced based learning Stavanger Centre for Innovation Research April 28 2011 Bengt-Åke Lundvall Aalborg University and Science Po, Paris National

20 MANAGEMENT DECISION 29,1 T he organisation and its competitive situation should be viewed not as separate, interdependent entities but as just different influences in the same global environment. The

Knowledge Economists Policy Brief n 7 January 2009 Policy Briefs are delivered by the "Knowledge for Growth" Expert Group advising the Commissioner for Research, Janez Potočnik. For more information on

C:\MyFiles\OECD-NSFppr.rtf PRELIMINARY - please do not quote THE KNOWLEDGE BASE IN THE ENGINEERING SECTOR Bo Carlsson Department of Economics Weatherhead School of Management Case Western Reserve University

0 0 0 I NTRODUCTION Different views of strategy Strategy is about organizational change. An action is strategic when it allows a firm to become better than its competitors, and when this competitive advantage

Curriculum for Bachelor s Degree Programme in Procuct Development and Technology Integration September 2011 Table of Contents The purpose of the curriculum is: 4 1. The purpose of the educational programme

Dimensions for describing and explaining the successful outcome of the IS outsourcing process emphasising the relationship perspective Linda Bergkvist * Department of Information Systems Karlstad University

The Kaieteur Institute For Knowledge Management THE e-knowledge BASED INNOVATION SEMINAR OVERVIEW! Introduction Knowledge is a new form of renewable and intangible energy that is transforming many organizations.

Knowledge Management A Strategic Perspective Preamble "In the emerging economy, a firm's only advantage is its ability to leverage and utilize its knowledge."...larry Prusak, Executive Director - The Institute

A methodology for knowledge based project management (Work in progress) Patrick Onions patrick@knowledgestudio.co.uk 23 January 2007 The characteristics of our late 20th century society demand the development

OECD TERRITorial review of Småland, Öland and Blekinge 1. Socio-economic trends The region s demographic trends largely mirror those of Sweden as a whole, on a smaller scale. Growing concentration of the

Recommendations to the Higher Arts Education Institutions, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and the Ministry of education and Science, Lithuania Overview Report of the Applied Arts Accreditation

Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study FLOSS Deliverable D18: FINAL REPORT Part 0: Table of Contents and Executive Summary International Institute of Infonomics University of Maastricht,

Lesson:-35 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE Students what do you all think Organizational Culture is? Can you all define it in your own way. In the 1980's, we saw an increase in the attention paid to organizational

GLOBAL SUPPLY MANAGEMENT: Selecting the 'Right' Source Countries As shown on the next page: This study aims to help the reader decide on where to locate ones business by helping identify sourcing strategy,

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Working Paper No. 17 Vendor models for credit risk measurement and management Observations from a review of selected models February 2010 The Working Papers of the

SUBJECT-SPECIFIC CRITERIA Relating to the accreditation of Bachelor s and Master s degree programmes in industrial engineering (as of 09 December 2011) The following specifications complement the ASIIN

SUMMARY DOCTORAL THESIS:,,RESEARCH ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIMULATED ENTERPRISE IN THE FIELD OF AGRIFOOD. CASE STUDY Doctoral student Engineer RADU (COSTEA-MARCU) DUMITRA, 2011 USAMV-Bucharest; Scientific

Seite 1 von 5 Public consultation on Draft Advice on customer complaint handling, Reporting and Classification VKU Response The German Association of Local Utilities (VKU) represents more than 700 municipal

PhD News 83 PhD News Modeling the Impact of Marketing Drivers on Consumer Behavior. An Example from the Fast-Moving Goods Category Iluta Skruzkalne Presentation of Doctoral paper took place at the Faculty

The emerging global market for Management System Certification Perspective of QHSE professionals This point of view represents a sanitised summary of the key market findings following the interview process

Knowledge Management Session Two Organizational Knowledge Management Intellectual capital Intellectual capital is combination of the Intellectual property (IP) held by a business and the people in that

The Research of Small and Medium Enterprises Knowledge Management Based on Document Strategy YU Lijuan School of Management, Beijing Union University, China, 100101 gltlijuan@buu.edu.cn Abstract: According

Günter Böckle Klaus Pohl Frank van der Linden 2 A Framework for Software Product Line Engineering In this chapter you will learn: o The principles of software product line subsumed by our software product

Professional Outsourcing Report Managing Shared Services Independent editorial sponsored by: Principles of governance Whether they are in the public or private sectors, shared services demand good governance.

DISCUSSION PAPER Findings from the 1 st EurOMA Service Operations Management Forum Workshop Dr P. A. Smart Exeter Centre for research in Strategic Processes and Operations (XSPO) School of Buisness and

Research into competency models in arts education Paper presented at the BMBF Workshop International Perspectives of Research in Arts Education, Nov. 4 th and 5 th, 2013. Folkert Haanstra, Amsterdam School

1 Doctor of Education - Higher Education The University of Liverpool s Doctor of Education - Higher Education (EdD) is a professional doctoral programme focused on the latest practice, research, and leadership

3rd International Nurse Education Conference. Sydney, 13 April, 2010. Where is nursing in academic nursing? The visibility of the discipline on the websites of higher education institutions. Martin McNamara*,

You need to be aware, however, that the operative decisions have to be integrated within the broader corporate framework established by the strategic decisions. In consequence, you must always refer to

A Structured Comparison of the Service Offer and the Service Supply Chain of Manufacturers Competing in the Capital Goods and Durable Consumer Goods Industries Donatella Corti, Alberto Portioli-Staudacher

Increasing operational efficiency through improved customer service a case from the process maintenance business Jaana Auramo, Kari Tanskanen and Johanna Småros Department of Industrial Engineering and

NSF Workshop: High Priority Research Areas on Integrated Sensor, Control and Platform Modeling for Smart Manufacturing Purpose of the Workshop In October 2014, the President s Council of Advisors on Science

Conclusions and Further Work Page 245 CHAPTER EIGHT Conclusions and Further Work This final chapter brings the thesis to a close by returning to the agenda which was established in chapter 1. It summarises

Board of Member States ERN implementation strategies January 2016 As a result of discussions at the Board of Member States (BoMS) meeting in Lisbon on 7 October 2015, the BoMS set up a Strategy Working

stra tegy STRATEGY OF SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES AARHUS UNIVERSITY 2012-17 INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction The strategy of Aarhus University's School of Business and Social Sciences for the period

Paper to be presented at the Summer Conference 2009 on CBS - Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3 DK2000 Frederiksberg DENMARK, June 17-19, 2009 KNOWLEDGE BASES, OPEN INNOVATION AND CITY REGIONS

Non-technical Summary This paper analyses the innovative activities of business service firms. For that purpose, we distinguish the so-called Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) and the more ordinary